Committee recommends denying special use for 16‑resident assisted‑living home on Route 31 after heavy public opposition

A St. Charles committee moved on a recommendation to deny a special‑use permit for a proposed 16‑bed assisted‑living group home at 5N024 Illinois Route 31 after extended public comment and council questioning.

Ellen, a city field planner, told the committee the applicant’s proposal qualified as a "large group home" under the city's zoning ordinance and would operate under an Illinois shared‑housing establishment license that allows operation of a non‑medical residential home for up to 16 adults who require assistance with activities of daily living. She said the plan commission had recommended approval 6–2 subject to conditions including 12‑foot maximum pole lights with motion sensors and 30‑foot landscape buffers along property lines.

Dozens of neighbors spoke during the agenda‑related public‑comment period. Ryan Root, a St. Charles resident, told the committee the project would be "wildly inappropriate for low‑density housing" and called it "a business. Period." He raised concerns about traffic, lighting, the project’s size and a social‑media business model he said was driving the applicant’s strategy.

Other neighbors echoed the concerns: Christina Yuga questioned whether the proposed operation could reliably deliver medication management and catheter care for memory‑care residents; several speakers said the site has moisture and flooding issues; and multiple neighbors warned that an 11,000‑square‑foot house could become a long‑term vacant property if the business failed.

Applicant Troy Horbach of Willby Properties LLC said the venture was family‑run and aimed to "provide care for our grandmas and grandpas in the community," acknowledging the enterprise must be profitable to succeed. Horbach said the business would rely on state licensing and on contracted home‑health services for medical needs. He described mentorship and prior operating templates as part of the plan and said an economy of scale (16 beds) was required for viability.

Committee members pressed Horbach on financing and operations. Horbach said he planned to apply for an SBA loan once building bids are available and estimated his personal cash investment at roughly 5–10 percent of the project cost; he said his partner and mentor would contribute additional funds. Questioners also asked how the proposed facility would be staffed, how many parking spaces would accommodate visitors and staff, and whether the site’s creek and low‑lying areas were buildable.

Several committee members described the proposal as effectively commercial rather than residential, and said that distinction affected whether it fit the RS1 low‑density zoning via special use. Committee member David moved to deny the special use citing the project’s likely effect on nearby property and general welfare and noting it did not conform with code expectations for the neighborhood. Vicki seconded the motion. A roll‑call vote recorded "yes" votes from the members present and the motion passed, denying the requested special use.

The committee did not adopt an alternative site or a specific mitigation plan during the meeting; staff noted that engineering plans, including a storm‑water report, would be required for any future submittal that was approved at a later date.

What happens next: the committee’s recommendation will be reflected in the minutes and any applicant wishing to pursue the project may pursue appeals or new filings consistent with city procedures; no council approval was recorded for the special use at this meeting.